The external and internal call.

[Josheb]

Also, God has chosen a people in Christ before the creation of the world. These chosen He has given to Christ, who has been entrusted with their full salvation. God's purpose is to preserve the elect and keep them from ever falling away (perseverance of the saints).

Jesus said,
39 And this is the will of Him who sent Me, that of everything that He has given Me I will lose nothing, but will raise it up on the last day. 40 For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who sees the Son and believes in Him will have eternal life, and I Myself will raise him up on the last day.” John 6:39-40.

Nevertheless, the firm foundation of God stands, having this seal: “The Lord knows those who are His;” and, “Everyone who names the name of the Lord is to keep away from wickedness.” 2 Timothy 2:19.

All of which was addressed in previous posts. Sometimes people fall away. They do so in many ways, some of which are not a loss of salvation. Some of them are so disobedient that they are handed over to Satan so that their spirits may be saved on the day of the Lord. They are the elect. They were called and chosen and can rely on the persevering work of God upon which all the elect can rely. The idea that the elect never fall away is directly contradicted by Paul's declaration he doesn't do what he wants to do and often does what he doesn't want to do, Peter's hypocrisy that was so severe it caused even Barnabas to stumble. Despite their disobedience they could rely on God's promises because their salvation was assured by God, not their fleshly failures. To fall away from the standards set by God is not identical to falling away from salvation, and if we're going to be consistent with Calvinism then the term "falling away" is a misnomer because if a person was never saved in the first place, then they did not fall away from salvation they never had in the first place. If they were saved, then "God's purpose is to preserve the elect and keep them from ever falling away" from that salvation.

 

[Arial]

All of which was addressed in previous posts. Sometimes people fall away. They do so in many ways, some of which are not a loss of salvation. Some of them are so disobedient that they are handed over to Satan so that their spirits may be saved on the day of the Lord. They are the elect. They were called and chosen and can rely on the persevering work of God upon which all the elect can rely. The idea that the elect never fall away is directly contradicted by Paul's declaration he doesn't do what he wants to do and often does what he doesn't want to do, Peter's hypocrisy that was so severe it caused even Barnabas to stumble. Despite their disobedience they could rely on God's promises because their salvation was assured by God, not their fleshly failures. To fall away from the standards set by God is not identical to falling away from salvation, and if we're going to be consistent with Calvinism then the term "falling away" is a misnomer because if a person was never saved in the first place, then they did not fall away from salvation they never had in the first place. If they were saved, then "God's purpose is to preserve the elect and keep them from ever falling away" from that salvation.

The question isn't what sometimes happens or what falling away might mean. The question is what did the writer of Hebrews mean. And in reference to this falling way, the writer clearly states that it is not possible "to restore them again to repentance, since they are crucifying once again the Son of God to their own harm and holding him up to contempt." Verse 6.

 

[Carbon]

The question isn't what sometimes happens or what falling away might mean. The question is what did the writer of Hebrews mean. And in reference to this falling way, the writer clearly states that it is not possible "to restore them again to repentance, since they are crucifying once again the Son of God to their own harm and holding him up to contempt." Verse 6.

@Josheb What she said.


I didn't think it was a difficult subject to focus on.

 

[Josheb]

Yes, it implies that the people addressed in verse 9 (in contrast to the people referred to in the preceding verses) are saved...

Then the rest of the text should be read with that in mind.

What? I don't see where you get these claims from.

From the text.

Dealing with a set of professing believers often means addressing them in general terms, whilst knowing that the generalities might not apply to all of them. This is addressed, in Heb. 6:4-8, where one type of potential exceptions is noted.

I agree. However, it is incumbent upon any reader not to go beyond the text and what the text allows. I've repeatedly stated the salvation or lack thereof of those in question is one of inference because the text itself is specifically silent on the matter. The facts of the text are that there is a pile of attributes applicable only to the saved and nothing explicit about any lack of salvation. Several of those attributes were sampled and looked through the lens of other scripture and, again, the attributes are applicable only to Christians and never to the unsaved. The silence of the text regarding their salvation is addressed by what it stated about the relevant group's attributes.

Having been given light, in the form of the essentials of the New Covenant, including that Jesus is the promised Messiah.

I'd ask you to prove that but that request has not been well received in this thread. I'll agree with you for the moment. If they have been given the essentials of the new covenant and we look at that from a Calvinist pov then there are only two options: they are saved, necessarily members of the elect and will persevere by God's hand simply because they were ordained as elect from eternity regardless of their temporal conduct or level of maturity at the time, or they were never saved in the first place.

Scripture never applies the attributes list, including the essentials of the new covenant, to the unsaved.

Why should the fact that Christians with a Gentile background gain benefit from the book, mean that it's not written to and about Hebrews?

I did not say it wasn't. I said there is no evidence it was written ONLY to Hebrews.

Was the law of Moses specific to Israel? (yes)

Yes

Can Christians from a Gentile background gain benefit from reading it? (yes)

Yes, which means there is plenty of reason NOT to exclude Gentile converts. The inclusion of Tanakh does not necessitate a Hebrew-only audience. All of the NT writers employed the OT and they did so to both Jewish and Gentile convert audiences.

The only Gentile converts who could revert to Judaism, would be ones who had already been proselytes to Judaism....

Oh, that's not true. This forum is filled with Christians who "reverted" back(wards) to Judaism. One of the many problems in the first century was the frequent Judaization of Christianity. Would you say the church in Ephesus was Hebraic or Jewish? Assuming not, then turn to Acts 19 because it was in Ephesus that the believers in Jesus knew only the baptism of John (a ritual taken from Tanakh). That apparently happened before Paul entered the synagogue(s) to preach. that passage explicitly states there were both Jewish and Gentile converts.

In point of fact there is a fairly large sect within Christianity known as "Messianic Judaism," that couches its beliefs and practices in Judaism. That sect was invented in the 1960s by a Baptist (!) minister trying to meet the need of Jewish converts in his congregation. Like Luther, Calvin, Wesley, and many others in Christian history, I doubt he intended to invent a new denomination, but there it is. In fact, I know a lot of Messianic Jewish believers, and at least two of them do not claim to be Christians, even as they uphold Jesus as the Messiah, as Lord and Savior who saves from sin. They will openly say, "I'm not a Christian, I am Jewish, a Messianic Jew!" Both of them are former Protestants (one Episcopal and the other Methodist), not former Jews. Even when not messianic Jews, we have members in this forum constantly teaching and expecting their readers to revert to Judaism.

Besides, Hebrews and Jews are not exactly the same . The Pentateuch (which contains the Law) was given to Hebrews, not Jews. As I have pointed out many times, Tanakh and Judaism are not the same thing. Jesus taught Tanakh, not Judaism.



Lest we lose the point of all this: Hebrews 6:4 is not a very good verse upon which to base the statement made in the op about the external call. The external and internal call(s) is what we're supposed to be discussing. How would a verse purportedly about those not saved evidence "The external call functions only by means of the word and the Spirit does join Himself in common Illumination and historical faith"? It's a dubious verse to which make an appeal if they are unsaved, and untenable if they are saved. A few more efficacious verses have been posted, like the calling of Abraham where all we have in the initial report is the mere call (and command) but we later learn came with the giving of the gospel and the knowledge God would provide the sacrifice through His single seed, making Abe the father of many nations, nations that included..... Gentiles, not just Hebrews (there were no Jews at that time and the Law had not yet been given).

 

[Carbon]

Lest we lose the point of all this: Hebrews 6:4 is not a very good verse upon which to base the statement made in the op about the external call.

Maybe go back to the op and take another look, I hope you will notice that Hebrews 6:4 is only one of three verses. These are just a few verses to start the thread.

The external and internal call(s) is what we're supposed to be discussing. How would a verse purportedly about those not saved evidence "The external call functions only by means of the word and the Spirit does join Himself in common Illumination and historical faith"? It's a dubious verse to which make an appeal if they are unsaved, and untenable if they are saved. A few more efficacious verses have been posted, like the calling of Abraham where all we have in the initial report is the mere call (and command) but we later learn came with the giving of the gospel and the knowledge God would provide the sacrifice through His single seed, making Abe the father of many nations, nations that included..... Gentiles, not just Hebrews (there were no Jews at that time and the Law had not yet been given).

If you can somehow shake free of Hebrews 6 and move on, I think you may see things differently.

Drop by post #8 also, and you will see where I tried to use another verse, but it seems you didn't want anything to do with adding that the discussion that you wanted to have about Hebrews 6.

Josh, I'm sorry I ruffled your feathers. Can we move past it?

 

[Arial]

I agree. However, it is incumbent upon any reader not to go beyond the text and what the text allows. I've repeatedly stated the salvation or lack thereof of those in question is one of inference because the text itself is specifically silent on the matter. The facts of the text are that there is a pile of attributes applicable only to the saved and nothing explicit about any lack of salvation. Several of those attributes were sampled and looked through the lens of other scripture and, again, the attributes are applicable only to Christians and never to the unsaved. The silence of the text regarding their salvation is addressed by what it stated about the relevant group's attributes.

However there are many scriptures that are not silent on the matter of whether a Christian can lose their salvation, making perfectly clear that they cannot. This is where the whole counsel of God on a subject becomes a help in these Hebrews passages.

John 10:28-30; John 3:15-16; Romans 8:38-39;John 6:39; Phil 1:3-6 to present a few. So that would exclude the Heb 6 passages from meaning that Christians can lose their salvation. And it would then mean that the writer of Hebrews was not applying them to the saved but to things that belong to the saved. Judas would be a perfect example of such a person.

 

[Josheb]

Maybe go back to the op and take another look, I hope you will notice that Hebrews 6:4 is only one of three verses.

Which is something I pointed out very early on. It's called proof-texting. Although that appraisal was resisted, the thread makes it self-evident someone else, not the opening post brought the larger text into the discussion.

These are just a few verses to start the thread.

Yep. That does not change the fact the one verse quoted does not well support the statement, "The external call functions only by means of the word and the Spirit does join Himself in common Illumination and historical faith," for reasons already posted, but there are better alternatives available.

If you can somehow shake free of Hebrews 6 and move on, I think you may see things differently.

I have. I went through the entire op and there are posts sitting in the thread unattended and unaddressed. I'm not the one not moving on.

Drop by post #8 also, and you will see where I tried to use another verse, but it seems you didn't want anything to do with adding that the discussion that you wanted to have about Hebrews 6.

Oooo, I thought an effort was going to be made to keep the posts about the posts. Post 8 was addressed. It's another proof-texted verse (as well as a copy-and-paste (ab)use of scripture. The Philippians 3:12 was addressed with other scripture asserting the Hebrews 6 group had received both and internal and external calling and were saved, whoever imperfectly that may have been. They grasped but had not become perfect, as opposed to never having grasped and been wholly depraved. All of that was covered, many times in many ways.

Josh, I'm sorry I ruffled your feathers.

Who said my feathers were ruffled? If sorrow or regret was genuine, I wouldn't read more of the same. My feathers are fine., but I would like the posts kept about the posts, and not the posters. Someone recently told me people will not always agree and some will try and argue and be rebellious, with both sides going about it wrongfully. Kindness is more ruthless than meanness.

I do not read any mention of feathers in the op.

Can we move past it?

I am waiting far enough down the road to look back and see Post 8 was addressed, and addressed substantively and diversely, along with both the internal and external aspects of calling. All of the op-relevant content in Post 9 (both Corinthians texts are relevant to the int/ext call), as well as the parable of the sower and the seed in Post 13. The same is true of Post 28 and 35. Even while debating the salvific disposition of the Hebrews 6 reference I selected and posted op-relevant content directly relevant to external and internal call. All of it is sitting idle in the thread while I'm asked to move on. How about you catch up? It is, after all, your op.

This op is about the external and internal call. Imo, Hebrews 6:4 is a very poor verse to use to support the statement, "The external call functions only by means of the word and the Spirit does join Himself in common Illumination and historical faith." There are better alternatives and they've been ignored. The question over whether or not the Hebrews 6 group referenced was saved or not seems unresolvable and that alone should be evidence sufficient to prove its inefficacy for the purpose intended in the opening post. If an historical example was wanted, then Abraham's experience seems much more efficacious and veracious. New Testament examples of external calls are abundant, but the calling of Peter or Saul prove much more effective than Hebrews 6:4.

@Josheb What she said.

I didn't think it was a difficult subject to focus on.

The op is the focus, and I agree, it's not a difficult subject on which to focus. The op-relevance of what I have posted along the way may not have been observed when posted but there's plenty of op-relevant content about the call to discuss in my posts. A simple word search of the word "call" in this thread shows I've posted more explicitly and implicitly about that than everyone else combined!

Can we move past it?

I am waiting for a pile of op-relevant content that has nothing to do with Hebrews 6 to be addressed. Can't wait for any of the Call-relevant content to be addressed and can't wait for my motives, our friendship, my lightly speaking, my purported pomposity, supposed need to always be correct, and my feathers to be left out. Just try keeping the posts about the posts. No one will have any problems with my posts when that happens.


Give it a try.

 

[Carbon]

Which is something I pointed out very early on. It's called proof-texting. Although that appraisal was resisted, the thread makes it self-evident someone else, not the opening post brought the larger text into the discussion.

Yep. That does not change the fact the one verse quoted does not well support the statement, "The external call functions only by means of the word and the Spirit does join Himself in common Illumination and historical faith," for reasons already posted, but there are better alternatives available.

I have. I went through the entire op and there are posts sitting in the thread unattended and unaddressed. I'm not the one not moving on.

Oooo, I thought an effort was going to be made to keep the posts about the posts. Post 8 was addressed. It's another proof-texted verse (as well as a copy-and-paste (ab)use of scripture. The Philippians 3:12 was addressed with other scripture asserting the Hebrews 6 group had received both and internal and external calling and were saved, whoever imperfectly that may have been. They grasped but had not become perfect, as opposed to never having grasped and been wholly depraved. All of that was covered, many times in many ways.

Who said my feathers were ruffled? If sorrow or regret was genuine, I wouldn't read more of the same. My feathers are fine., but I would like the posts kept about the posts, and not the posters. Someone recently told me people will not always agree and some will try and argue and be rebellious, with both sides going about it wrongfully. Kindness is more ruthless than meanness.

I do not read any mention of feathers in the op.

I am waiting far enough down the road to look back and see Post 8 was addressed, and addressed substantively and diversely, along with both the internal and external aspects of calling. All of the op-relevant content in Post 9 (both Corinthians texts are relevant to the int/ext call), as well as the parable of the sower and the seed in Post 13. The same is true of Post 28 and 35. Even while debating the salvific disposition of the Hebrews 6 reference I selected and posted op-relevant content directly relevant to external and internal call. All of it is sitting idle in the thread while I'm asked to move on. How about you catch up? It is, after all, your op.

This op is about the external and internal call. Imo, Hebrews 6:4 is a very poor verse to use to support the statement, "The external call functions only by means of the word and the Spirit does join Himself in common Illumination and historical faith." There are better alternatives and they've been ignored. The question over whether or not the Hebrews 6 group referenced was saved or not seems unresolvable and that alone should be evidence sufficient to prove its inefficacy for the purpose intended in the opening post. If an historical example was wanted, then Abraham's experience seems much more efficacious and veracious. New Testament examples of external calls are abundant, but the calling of Peter or Saul prove much more effective than Hebrews 6:4.

The op is the focus, and I agree, it's not a difficult subject on which to focus. The op-relevance of what I have posted along the way may not have been observed when posted but there's plenty of op-relevant content about the call to discuss in my posts. A simple word search of the word "call" in this thread shows I've posted more explicitly and implicitly about that than everyone else combined!

I am waiting for a pile of op-relevant content that has nothing to do with Hebrews 6 to be addressed. Can't wait for any of the Call-relevant content to be addressed and can't wait for my motives, our friendship, my lightly speaking, my purported pomposity, supposed need to always be correct, and my feathers to be left out. Just try keeping the posts about the posts. No one will have any problems with my posts when that happens.


Give it a try.

I'm glad you are good.

 

[Carbon]

I believe, concerning this calling there is a distinction between an external and an inward call.

The inward call is an effectual call and the work of God's grace. Arminians and some other free willers also use the word "grace" in order to try and prove they are speaking scripturally. However, if you pay attention you will see them teach it in such a manner that grace is no longer grace. They teach that grace is nothing more than that which enables man to perform. Since they maintain that the ability to will and to do originates in man, they also reason, and they thank God that they are able to repent, but they must take the glory that they were willing to do so. So, they make it a distinction between sufficient grace and efficacious grace.

 

[Arial]

This op is about the external and internal call. Imo, Hebrews 6:4 is a very poor verse to use to support the statement, "The external call functions only by means of the word and the Spirit does join Himself in common Illumination and historical faith." There are better alternatives and they've been ignored. The question over whether or not the Hebrews 6 group referenced was saved or not seems unresolvable and that alone should be evidence sufficient to prove its inefficacy for the purpose intended in the opening post. If an historical example was wanted, then Abraham's experience seems much more efficacious and veracious. New Testament examples of external calls are abundant, but the calling of Peter or Saul prove much more effective than Hebrews 6:4.

Here is the relevance of Heb 6:4 to the inward and outward call. What is listed in Heb 4-6 as "enlightenment" etc., and the fact that there was a falling away from it, is evidence of an outward call but no inward call. Which is what has been said early on and repeatedly and trashed by one poster every single time.

Judas received an outward call, but no inward call. "Many are called, but few are chosen." Outward call, inward call. The parable of the sower. Outward calls, inward call. All these have been pointed out early in this thread and what is received in return is rabbit trails and contempt.

 

[Arial]

How about you catch up? It is, after all, your op.

A simple word search of the word "call" in this thread shows I've posted more explicitly and implicitly about that than everyone else combined!

Can't wait for any of the Call-relevant content to be addressed and can't wait for my motives, our friendship, my lightly speaking, my purported pomposity, supposed need to always be correct, and my feathers to be left out. Just try keeping the posts about the posts.

Give it a try.

Keep the posts about the post not posters.

 

[Carbon]

The inward call is an effectual call and the work of God's grace. Arminians and some other free willers also use the word "grace" in order to try and prove they are speaking scripturally. However, if you pay attention you will see them teach it in such a manner that grace is no longer grace. They teach that grace is nothing more than that which enables man to perform. Since they maintain that the ability to will and to do originates in man, they also reason, and they thank God that they are able to repent, but they must take the glory that they were willing to do so. So, they make it a distinction between sufficient grace and efficacious grace.

Arminians and other synergists understand sufficient grace to mean that God has given sufficient ability to all men. They believe everyone has been given the ability to repent and believe in Jesus.
They also refer to this as prevenient and suggestive grace.
However, whatever they desire to name it, it is a grace that is entirely subject to free will of man which determines whether or not it is to be accepted.

So, each part operates independently, God from His side and man from his side. So, if a man hears the gospel, and decides to repent, God will assist him, woo him on and stimulate him by various motives.

This operation of course remains external, and man always remains free and in control of his decision to accept or reject the gospel.

 

[Josheb]

Keep the posts about the post not posters.

I did.

 

[Carbon]

Also, synergists understand effectual grace to refer to the result. It isn't effectual (irresistible) in God's hands to convert man, but only in reference to the result.
To the Synergist, man's free will remains lord and master, having ultimate power to either accept or reject. It's like God is just a friend or a gentleman who just advises and urges man to act, but it is man himself who decides whether or not he will allow himself to be persuaded.

This calling (grace) does not exsist in scripture. .

 

[Carbon]

This op is about the external and internal call. Imo, Hebrews 6:4 is a very poor verse to use to support the statement, "The external call functions only by means of the word and the Spirit does join Himself in common Illumination and historical faith." There are better alternatives and they've been ignored. The question over whether or not the Hebrews 6 group referenced was saved or not seems unresolvable and that alone should be evidence sufficient to prove its inefficacy for the purpose intended in the opening post. If an historical example was wanted, then Abraham's experience seems much more efficacious and veracious. New Testament examples of external calls are abundant, but the calling of Peter or Saul prove much more effective than Hebrews 6:4.

Grace is either common or special. God bestows common grace on all men by granting them temporal benefits.
This grace which brings salvation has appeared to all men. For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation to all people, Titus 2:11.
God generally gives illumination, historical faith, and convictions to almost become a Christian. Hebrews 6:4-6.

 

[Josheb]

Grace is either common or special. God bestows common grace on all men by granting them temporal benefits.

Yep. Apply that to either the external or internal call(s).

This grace which brings salvation has appeared to all men.

Yep. Apply that to either the external or internal call(s).

For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation to all people, Titus 2:11.

Yep. Apply that to either the external or internal call(s).

God generally gives illumination, historical faith, and convictions to almost become a Christian. Hebrews 6:4-6.

Gives give to almost become a Christian?

Got scripture for that because that's not what Hebrews 6:4-6 actually states. Given the debate that text caused why revisit it if the objective is to move on? Why not choose some other text(s) that might prove more efficacious?

 

[Carbon]

Yep. Apply that to either the external or internal call(s).

Yep. Apply that to either the external or internal call(s).

Yep. Apply that to either the external or internal call(s).

Gives give to almost become a Christian?

Got scripture for that because that's not what Hebrews 6:4-6 actually states. Given the debate that text caused why revisit it if the objective is to move on? Why not choose some other text(s) that might prove more efficacious?

I am not sure why you disagree that Hebrews 6 isn't a good example. There are many reformes and puritans who disagree with you. John Owen being one.

 

[Carbon]

I am not sure why you disagree that Hebrews 6 isn't a good example. There are many reformes and puritans who disagree with you. John Owen being one.

So, I believe I am among good company, though you may not agree.

 

[Josheb]

I am not sure why you disagree that Hebrews 6 isn't a good example.

Three-and-a-half pages explained it.

There are many reformers and puritans who disagree with you. John Owen being one.

Are our beliefs to be based on what the Bibles states, or what others make it say? Is this op intended to be a discussion of Puritan beliefs, or John Owens views?

Let me know.

So, I believe I am among good company, though you may not agree.

Argumentum ad populum.


In prior posts the wish to move one was expressed. Why then is this brought back up? Post 87 summarizes my replies to the op and out of all that is posted there, Heb. 6:4 is the one point addressed after having said, "Can we move on?" I can and have moved on. I am waiting for everything else to be addressed. Post 96 asks for scripture and the response is the Puritans and Owens. The Puritans are not scripture. Neither is John Owens. Four or five times (maybe more) I have asked for scripture doing what is claimed in the posts. I repeatedly asked for explanations how the claims apply to the external and internal call. All the efforts to get the conversation back on the original topic are obstructed.

I didn't think it was a difficult subject to focus on.

No, the external and internal call is not a difficult subject, so I wonder why it's being avoided in favor of the one division that's occurred. Is what I'm saying understood? In spite of the many shared areas, in spite of the affirmed content, in spite of repeated efforts to discuss the call, the one matter that keeps being broached is the one area of divide, the one point over which "Can we move on?" was asked.

Can we move on?

Yep. I'm way ahead of the divide over Hebrews 6, looking back at all the rest that has been posted, and waiting on everyone else to discuss the op in light of the many diverse things posted about the call.


To summarize much of what I've posted in another effort to get back to the op:

With the exception to the John verse used in the op, the scriptures employed are written to the already saved. God's call precedes salvation. There at least five means of calling prior to the new birth, and at least two existing afterwards. Hebrews 6:4 is not a very good verse upon which to base the statement made in the op about the external call. More efficacious verses exist, like the calling of Abraham where all we have in the initial report is the mere call (and command) but we later learn came with the giving of the gospel and the knowledge God would provide the sacrifice through His single seed, making Abe the father of many nations, nations that included..... Gentiles, not just pre-Promised Land Hebrews (there were no Jews at that time and the Law had not yet been given). God's grace is relevant to the external and internal call and I've many of the verses I've posted in the posts I listed speak to that fact. The examples of Peter and Saul, the last half of Romans 1, and the plethora of occasions Jesus spoke of calling, including, "Many are called but few are chosen" are awaiting discussion op-relevantly. Paul wrote about calling four dozen times. The other epistle authors two dozen times. We're five pages into this op and Hebrews 6 is still being belaboring when I have moved on.

 

[Carbon]

Three-and-a-half pages explained it.

Okay.

Are our beliefs to be based on what the Bibles states, or what others make it say? Is this op intended to be a discussion of Puritan beliefs, or John Owens views?

And what makes you so sure you know what the bible teaches, and so many others do not.

Ok, I will move on. I feel you have the need to be right. Fine with me.

If I do mention Hebrews 6, you do not have to comment.

Blessings